Pat Searcy’s obfuscation of the immigration issues created by, and whirling about US Representative Tancredo, are matched only by the very policies Mr. Tancredo wishes to promulgate.

Using Searcy’s argument that Mr. Tancredo is absolved of any obligation or responsibility for work performed at his house (Mr. Tancredo’s) by ‘illegal immigrants’ (ostensibly because it was a “private contractor” who hired the illegal immigrants), renders those terms, ‘obligation and responsibility’, completely meaningless – ala Alberto Gonzales who will not accept responsibility because ‘his staff’ was working on “those” matters – ala President Bush who refuses to take responsibility for ‘anything’.

Surely Mr. Tancredo as the national protagonist (if not the leading antagonist), as it relates to ‘illegal immigration’, would ensure the term ‘hypocrisy’ could never be ‘attached’ to him. Or, he could simply ‘take a page’ from the Bush/Rove manifesto: “I was not made fully aware”; “my staff failed me”; or, the most commonly used these days: “We received bad information”. In any case, Mr. Searcy quickly dismisses any notion of responsibility by citing “distinction that is lost on the narrow-minded”.

Well, Mr. Searcy we should all be ‘sleeping better at night’ knowing that ‘someone else is responsible'; and how “narrow-minded” of us to think that Mr. Tancredo should bear “any” responsibility.

Maybe Rep. Tancredo should have asked a question or two, but more importantly, if the price was lower than other bids, that should have raised a red flag. Especially on this issue.

Pat

While Rudy Garcia was eloquent in his reply to my letter, he obviously thinks that I darkened the illegal immigration issue when he used the term â€œobfuscationâ€? in directing his remarks toward my writing.

The entire point of my letter is to shed light upon the topic regarding Tom Tancredoâ€™s stance on immigration, not obfuscate it. It always amazing how often people can read something in black and white but see completely different words to fit their preconceived idea of the topic. Thatâ€™s nice talk in place of saying Mr. Garcia sounds rather bigoted in his views of Tom Tancredo. He prejudges the congressmanâ€™s positions.

The very policies Mr. Tancredo wishes to promulgate are to eradicate ILLEGAL immigration. To promulgate means to make clear through open disclosure. Mr. Garcia must not appreciate the rare politician who has the courage to be so candid with their true policy wishes. Maybe he prefers politicians who only tell him what he wants to hear so he can feel better. Sometimes the truth hurts the ears. But at least Tancredo is speaking his true feelings of fair and enforceable immigration laws. What confuses me is that Rudy Garcia is lashing out at Tom Tancredo for having some work done by illegal workers hired by a private contractor, but still sounds like a person who does not approve of Tancredoâ€™s stance of upholding our immigration laws.

Mr. Garcia wants us all to believe that if he hires a private contractor to work on his house that he is going to conduct rigorous background checks on each employee of that contractor. And that he is going to be on location during the process of that work to ensure that nobody arrives at the work site that has not gone through his background check.

On his website, Tom Tancredo has the following quote from Theodore Roosevelt: “In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American and nothing but an American…There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… And we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”

Rudy V. Garcia

I agree with Pat’s implication that we all bear some responsibility on ‘every’ public policy issue, including immigration policies – citing everyone’s responsibility (including my own) in ensuring that contractors’ employees are in fact legal residents of this country (as an example). The tenor of my response, if not implicit, should have been more explicit – I am not a lawmaker; I am not a public official; I am not a representative of the people; and, I am not a person who purports to either make policy or change policy, as it regards immigration – Congressman Tancredo is. The issue is not whether I agree or disagree with Mr. Tancredo’s policies (I happen not to) – it is the hypocrisy associated with espousing a “public policy” while leaving your actions in question by violating your own tenets. And so, while I agree with Pat’s (tacit) assertion that we all have some responsibility, I still maintain that Mr. Tancredo, in garnering any credibility from those he represents – should be “purer than Ceasar’s wife” on public policy issues he wishes to legislate.

anderson

Wow, a civil discussion on immigration. Where are the attack dogs?

I don’t know the facts regarding Tancredo’s “hired hands”. It may that he was completely unaware. However, I think there is an element of hypocrisy in his stance, ie., his apparent denial of the fact he, and all of us, benefit economically from illegal immigration while at the same time he attributes nearly every ill known to society to “them”.

Also, he talks the talk about being a leader on immigration, yet he clearly opposed bi-partisan legislation that came out of the Senate last year. It makes me wonder whether he really wants reform.

Pat Searcy: in your letter you made a distinction between anti-immigrant and anti-illegal immigration. I believe Tancredo is on record as opposing any new immigration. In my book, that makes him anti-immigrant. Moreover, he and his followers, are constantly harping at Spanish culture (e.g., the Denver library incident), which is part and parcel of American culture and the history of our state. That, and his whole spiel, tells me he has more on his agenda than simply enforcing the law.

Finally, you decry the concepts of racism and bigotry being applied to opponents of immigration (how’s that?). Being concerned about immigration, or even taking a stance against it, does not make one a racist. However, you’re ignoring the elephant in the room, the fact that the anti-illegal or anti-immigrant movement is fully of racists and bigots. It’s given them cover to come out of the closet. Racism and bigotry is clearly expressed in the many comments made about immigrants, e.g., in the readiness of many to fabricate and exaggerate (in a very negative manner) the effect of immigration on our society.

joe

Rudy seems to be saying that people in glass houses (politicians), shouldn’t throw stones (have strong opinions). Sorta like some radio commentators, eh?

Well, that’s tough these days in so far as getting any remodeling or renovation work done on a private home or business. Illegal’s have so permeated the construction labor market that getting a crew over to work without at least one is nearly impossible.

Tom has already stated that his purpose in running for president is not to become president so much, as it is to use the race as a podium to energize the illegal alien invasion situation that we are in the midst of. I’m sure Tom feels bad about the fact that an illegal may have worked on his property, but hey, I feel bad knowing that an illegal probably butchered the beef and bacon I ate today, picked the potatoes I had for dinner, for sure harvested the grapes in the juice I drank for lunch, and, having had some work done to my home recently, knowing that there was likely an illegal or two in that bunch.

We can’t fire everyone that isn’t completely PC or in compliance with all immigration laws, there wouldn’t be anyone left in government. But we can let Tom carry the torch and raise awareness of the problem.

Pat

No, Mr. Garcia, you are wrong that Tom Tancredo should be held to any higher standards than those set for every other citizen simply because he is a public figure who rails against illegal immigration. My sarcastic point about you doing background checks was that you could just as easily hire a contractor believing all his employees were legal citizens only to later find out that he had some who were here illegally without your knowledge. Mr. Tancredo was guilty (if you want to call it that) of trusting his contractor. He didnâ€™t do anything that was different from what you may have done.

Anderson, you are also wrong by stating that Tom Tancredo is on record as opposing any new immigration. That is just flat out false. I have heard him talk on this issue numerous times, and each time he has been emphatic and very clear in stating just the opposite. He favors immigration that is legal. He opposes immigration that is illegal.

What is all too often missed in this discussion on illegal immigration is the national security factor. Itâ€™s not just about simply wanting people to do the right thing by going through the proper channels to have the authority to come and stay here legally. Itâ€™s also about keeping people out who absolutely despise America so much that they would do anything they can to compromise our boarders and infiltrate our society with the specific intent to launch terrorism against you and me and those we love. So, please, can we stop with the weak and unfounded assertions about racism?

anderson

Pat, I’ve heard Tancredo speak too. The following is from wikipedia on Tancredo. Is my statement still flat-out false, or is wikipedia wrong?

“The most significant immigration-related legislation that Tancredo worked to pass was The Mass Immigration Reduction Act. The act would have imposed an indefinite moratorium on immigration to the United States.”

As far as security goes, if we fix our broken laws, we will be better able to identify any bad guys. However, if our laws remain as they are, or if we create policies that continue to force people underground, then they are more likely to go undetected.

The issue of security has nothing to do with racism, which quite clearly is all over the immigration debate including the growth in white supremacist groups, and the daily lies and divisive talk we hear on talk radio 24/7. If you can’t see it, maybe it’s because it doesn’t affect you directly.

Guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 150 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address, day and evening phone numbers, and may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.

To reach the Denver Post editorial page by phone: 303-954-1331

Recent Comments

peterpi: I think I have this correct: Voters in Jefferson County elected school board members that the superintendent...

peterpi: Sounds good to me. For future employees. I believe police and fire dept. brass have also been known to get...